Christopher Monckton writes
During my valedictorian keynote at the conference, I appointed the lovely Diane Bast as my independent adjudicatrix. She read out six successive questions to the audience, one by one. I invited anyone who would answer “No†to that question to raise a hand. According to the adjudicatrix, not a single hand was raised in response to any of the questions.
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniersâ€, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
You can count me in that 100%. I’d answer “yes” on every question. At that point, though, the science needs to come in to play. As I wrote the other week
5. The argument is about what has caused the Modern Warm Period warming.
6. And, finally, the Earth has warmed around 1.4F, but what has caused this to occur? This is the crux of the debate.
It’s not about warming. It’s not about whether greenhouse gases have contributed. It’s about how much. Warmists say mostly/solely. Most Skeptics, or, as we’re now known, Climate Optimists, say that the contributions from CO2 and other greenhouse gases are minimal. Some Climate Optimists say the contributions have been bigger, but are no danger. Regardless, if Warmists thought the danger was so great they’d change their own behavior, starting with giving up their own fossil fueled travel, instead of agitating and demanding that Other People pay the price for the Warmist’s beliefs.
Those are… ok… questions. But to find out if anyone is a True Believer, you have to dig a little deeper, like asking:
– When an area experiences drought, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When an area experiences flooding, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When an area experiences high temps, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When an area experiences cold temps, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When a coral reef experiences stress, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When an area experiences earthquakes, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– When an area experiences drought, is it because of man-caused climate change?
– Will the CO2 we produce destroy the world’s ecosystem as a whole?
Only if you answer ‘yes’ to all of those can you join the church. Otherwise, you are a denier!!!
Lord Monckton is setting up his minions for a gradual switch in strategy. Of course the Earth is warming, no sentient being denies that any longer (although Deniers did for a long, long time). Of course the warming is related to the gigatons/year of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere. The evidence is overwhelming. Most Deniers aren’t there yet on CO2 but will adjust soon or join the Flat Earth Society. What you’ll be arguing in the next year is that the economic costs of global warming mediation will be too high (they aren’t) or that warming is a good thing.
from Monckton:
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change? — Of course!
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s? — Sure, from about 320 ppm to 400 ppm.
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s? — Absolutely. Studies show that the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming? — Sure. It’s well understood, all things being equal, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming. It’s also well understood that other processes contribute to the mean global surface temperature. For example, volcanoes and fossil fuel burning can add aerosols to the atmosphere that can reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. The Sun itself cycles through slightly warmer and slightly cooler phases. Ice and snow reflect some solar radiation. Cyclic, slight changes in the Earth’s orbit characteristics can change to distribution of the Sun’s energy and lead to periods of warming and cooling. The current warming period is caused by CO2.
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s? — Yes, it’s not likely, it’s a fact; about 0.15 degree C.
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950? — Absolutely. Measurements by climate scientists show that most of the warming since 1950 is from long half-life greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels.
Kevin asks:
– When an area experiences drought, is it because of man-caused climate change? — Not always, but sometimes.
– When an area experiences flooding, is it because of man-caused climate change? — Quite possibly.
– When an area experiences high temps, is it because of man-caused climate change? — It can be.
– When an area experiences cold temps, is it because of man-caused climate change? — It’s possible.
– When a coral reef experiences stress, is it because of man-caused climate change? — Not always, but often.
– When an area experiences earthquakes, is it because of man-caused climate change? — Probably not.
– Will the CO2 we produce destroy the world’s ecosystem as a whole? — Trick question! CO2, even from fossil fuels, is part of the world’s ecosystem! The added CO2 will most likely continue to cause warming which will have a negative effect on human societies.
Hmm. You are not getting with the program enough, Jeffrey. Ok, we’ll let you into the cult of Global Warming. But only as an acolyte – not as a preacher.
As an acolyte, you can only spread doom and gloom on websites. But if you learn to answer YES to those questions, we might be able to get you on TV or in print!
– Dominus Goricus
J-“Most of the warming since 1950 is from greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels..” Whoa..”Most”? What does “most” mean? 51%? 60%? If you don’t know, which you don’t, you have almost nothing. “Greenhouse gasses”? There’s more than one now that will cause our destruction? What is it and how do we get rid of it? If you’re talking water vapor, what percentage is from Co2 and what percentage from water vapor? But back to the first sentence- there is no proof, only a model that says it should happen. We have records that show temps rising when Co2 was not rising, and we have records of temps not rising when CO2 was rising. So, as I read elsewhere, “It is impossible to prove causation without a consistent proceeding correlation.”
Kevin,
Just tellin’ the truth. Science is evidence and data, not ideology.
I don’t know what drives Deniers. For some, it’s a paycheck. For some, it’s their religion. Others don’t like the social and economic implications. But the facts are simple and stark. The evidence tells us the Earth is warming because of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
Teach tells us the argument is about causation. It’s not. The argument is about what we will do about it.
600 Denier elites agree:
The Earth is warming from CO2 added to the atmosphere.
CO2 is increasing because of man’s actions (burning fossil fuels).
These are startling admissions from the Denier Imams and undercuts most of the distracting arguments made by their followers.
Lord Monckton claims the argument is about how much of the current warming results from added CO2. (Scientific response = almost all).
This is the last stand before the entire anti-science façade of Deniers collapses.
And once the façade collapses, the argument will be “So what, the cure is worse than the disease.”
I believe wholeheartedly in climate change.
But I refer to it as “weather”.
creeper,
It’s not about belief, but about understanding.
Weather refers to the day to day fluctuations in the climate. Climate is the overall trend in terms of temperatures, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, winds observed over decades.
If a region were to experience a 10 degree increase in daytime highs over 20 years and a 50% decrease in precipitation, one would say that region is experiencing climate change.
If the NWS predicts rain tomorrow night, that’s weather.
Obviously, climate change (currently driven by global warming) will impact the day to day weather patterns.
“4. Other things being equal,”
Never have been, never will be. That’s the difference between the real world and the warmists’ computer games.
Junk Skeptic,
Lord Monckton made the tough to interpret remark, not some climate scientist. Computer models aren’t making the Earth warmer, CO2 is. Even the Denier elites admit it.
j,
I understand that you use the fact that scientists use qualifiers such as ‘most’, ‘appears to’, ‘most likely’ as evidence against them, but that’s just the way science writing is done. Ask a scientist if the Sun will rise tomorrow and they’ll answer “almost certainly”. Only the religious and fools are certain.
You typed:
Most of the warming since 1950 is from greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels..†Whoa..â€Mostâ€? What does “most†mean? 51%? 60%? If you don’t know, which you don’t, you have almost nothing. — At least 90%. A little from the Sun early in the interval.
“Greenhouse gassesâ€? There’s more than one now that will cause our destruction? What is it and how do we get rid of it? If you’re talking water vapor, what percentage is from Co2 and what percentage from water vapor? — Why yes, there is more than one greenhouse gas. You didn’t know that? There is methane and N2O and H20 vapor and ozone and CFCs. As you know, water vapor is a short-lived gas, what with rain and snow and all. Although commenters here have Denied it in the past, water vapor concentration depends on temperature! As CO2 has caused the Earth to warm the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased. It’s one of those feedback thingies you’ve heard others talk about. Since almost all the warming is from CO2, and since any increase in warming from water vapor depends on CO2 we can say that all the INCREASE is from CO2. Imagine how much water vapor there is during a glacial period (hint: not very much!). It’s almost all ice and water. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because it stays in the atmosphere for a long time and because we add so much to the atmosphere.
But back to the first sentence- there is no proof, only a model that says it should happen. — There is plenty of proof that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation and re-emits it. There is plenty of proof that the radiative wavelengths NOT making it back to space are the ones absorbed by greenhouse gases. I know you think scientists are dumb, gullible and dishonest but they’re not.
We have records that show temps rising when Co2 was not rising, and we have records of temps not rising when CO2 was rising. So, as I read elsewhere, “It is impossible to prove causation without a consistent proceeding correlation.†— Simple. CO2 isn’t the only component of the global mean surface temperature. For example, El Ninos and La Ninas exchange heat between the oceans and atmosphere. Clouds, aerosols, albedo, volcanoes can all change the year to year surface readings. If you were an honest observer (and you’re not) you would see that the heat content of the oceans has increased with the increase in atmospheric CO2. At other times in the distant past, the physical processes that caused warming or cooling were different than the current warming. Asteroids slammed into the Earth early and warmed it immensely. Supervolcanoes filled the air with aerosols cooling the Earth. Milankovitch cycles describe the eccentricities of the Earth’s orbits that are thought to be responsible for the Earth entering and leaving periods of glaciation. And I’ll repeat – scientific theories are not proven.
Jeffery,
Folks might take you a bit more seriously if your responses were at least partially relevant to the comments being made.
Let me see if I can explain this so the lefty poo-flinging monkeys out there might get a clue (unlikely, but I’ll try).
IF all else was equal (it’s not, see sinks, absorption, etc), ONLY then can increased CO2 be shown to fractionally increase temps, up to a certain point where further CO2 increases have no added effect.
The false condition for the IF at the beginning of the premise makes the question moot.
Computer games aren’t doing anything but contributing to pseudo-intellectual onanism.
The fact that we’re recovering from the last glacial period is why it’s slowly getting warmer on a geological time scale. Short-term temp swings from century to century are just like your responses, irrelevant noise.
Junk Skeptic,
Yes, noise. I’m used to hearing it.
As I said, and mocked earlier, Lord Monckton’s qualifier makes little sense.
You typed your hypothesis to account for the current warming:
“The fact that we’re recovering from the last glacial period is why it’s slowly getting warmer on a geological time scale. Short-term temp swings from century to century are just like your responses, irrelevant noise.”
Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that the current rapid warming is a component of a gradual temperature rise since the last glacial period? Over the past 6000 years, the Earth has gradually and steadily cooled some 0.6 degrees C. In the past 100 years or so the global mean surface temperature has rapidly increased (in geological terms) about 1C.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
In global climate terms this is a meaningful change. I guess the crux is whether the warming will continue based on continued CO2 emissions or if this current rapid warming is random noise. The theory of AGW predicts continued increases.